Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that templates start as drafts, cannot be sent until published, and that content can be provided inline or later. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers key constraints, workflow, and a realistic example. Every sentence adds necessary guidance, and the structure flows logically from purpose to parameters to example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision points: required name, draft vs published state, inline vs later content, and routing strategy linkage. It does not detail every nested subfield, but the schema already documents those. The description is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid initial request.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that name is required, content may be set later, and routing.strategy_id controls channel selection. The included example concretely illustrates how state, branding, routing, and content map into the request body.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a V2 notification template.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_journey_template and send_message by scoping to notification templates. The V2 qualifier and draft/publish details further pin down exactly what is created.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the draft-to-publish workflow, stating that a newly created template cannot be sent until published and that publishing is a separate operation or can be done via state: 'PUBLISHED'. It gives context for when to use this tool versus later publishing. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling 'publish_notification', but the workflow is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.